zurew

Yes, I agree, that hypothetically its possible to build a great society almost under any system, however I think when we talk about things like this, we should take into account things like morality as well. (Do we really believe that we only care about the results without giving any fuck about how we achieve those results and at what cost?)

If thats the case, then I think the closest system to your idea under democracy is liquid democracy. In that case we still don't totally abandon the voting part, but people can give their vote to people who they believe will make better decisions for whatever reasons. - in this case freedom is not totally lost.

Thats exactly how your system sounds to me. You even say that people don't even know what they want, so you would prefer if you could change their beliefs and ideology overall. That and all the other things that you talked about is pointing to a totalitarian system. I obviously see that there are many ways to impact society other than voting. But those impacts will still be there no matter if you abolish voting or not.

Structurally speaking we have more ways to solve this problem under a democractic system vs your totalitarian system where your whole structure actually calls for more exploitation and corruption because its totally centralized.

Thats a completely different issue that needs to be discussed. Also, your system doesn't solve this problem ,the brainwashing and the negative effects of social media will still stand unless your group of people will totally ban those - but then you will suffer other negative effects. Its not that as if this issue as easy as your try to frame it here.

No, but I don't think your alternative is any way better, giving the fact that in your system if shit gets real and things going downhill the only way to change that is if people start to get super violent, start to burn shit down and stuff like that. I could ask you the opposite: Do you really think, that we get the most optimal governing from people who have all the power in their hands and they can do whatever the fuck they want with that power without giving any fuck about people's best interest and without anyone holding them accountable for their actions? No, you ignored my point here. If a handful of people governing the whole country and they are making all the decisions without any outside input, in that case if those people start to become corrupt and start to exploit people, then in that system you have no way to try to break that system other than violence. In a democractic system if most of the people is fed up with a particular party's bullshit and a particular party's way of governing the country, then they can elect a different party.

This idea is compatible with a democratic system, you don't need to abolish voting to achieve these things. This is an assumption, and you can't know this with 100% certanty, because we haven't had political parties that would offer those possibilities and ideas , so you can't know if people would vote for them or not. They are not wrong, they have different preferences than you, and you want to make it look like ,that you have the right preference, when in reality all preferences are subjective. With your preference we could have a hypothetical world, where the happiness is maximized, but there is 0% free will. You obviously argue for a system where most people don't have any say, so me saying that you take away control and power from most people is correct and stands. You have an old totalitarian idea, where you assume that a group of people will do everything in favour of all people without misuing their power, without exploitation, where you have no way to check on these people, and you have no way to change the system without violence. So how do you make sure, that people who will be in power in your system, won't misuse their power, and won't exploit? Under a democratic system we have ways to have pressure on the system and we have ways to change the system, but in your world thats not possible.

What love means in practice will be very different for people, based on a thousand different things. The "what is good" and "what is good for us" parts are not clear cut and not the same for everyone and that will be a problem in your system , where no outside input (vote) will be on the table for people, who would be considered not holistic thinkers or uneducated people. Also what about people who value freedom the most? Your system completely goes against their 1st priority of value, and that will eventually manifest in outbursts and protests etc. So how is your system better, where a group of people make decisions for everyone, where that group of people have all the power in their hands, where they can misuse their power easily , because no one hold them accountable for their actions (under the assumption that they will only seek the best for all people), and where if you disagree with the system and if they exploit you, you and basically no one outside of that group have any say and need to obey to their order without any question or say.

How would you know why people vote for what? They could vote for personality every time or they could vote for that person because of the facts, but how would you determine which one is the case? What would this mean in practice though? We can have almost perfect calculations and equations about physics, but thats not the case about politics at all. There is no one perfect equation or way to do it, all political action requires a lot of contemplation, and rethinking of the methods and the creation of new methods and new ways to solve things etc. It would be too reductive to try to make a perfect equation, because the world is in constant change, people are changing our values are changing , our tools to solve problems are changing etcetc. Also, your statement assumes, that all of us have the same values, but thats also not the case. Sure everyone loves the word "freedom" and "healthcare for everyone" etc, but everyone has his/her own hierarchy of values, and when it comes to the distribution of goods and services and power, then all disagreements comes automatically . For some people freedom might be 1st in priority,but for others it might only be the 4th or 5th on list. This is not mutually exclusive with voting. You can have all these things and voting as well.

@D2sage You should have shared a link like this, and you would have proven your theory. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338563093_Migrants_and_Crime_in_Sweden_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

Good argument

Its there But this not proves your theory about immigrants though.

Even if I take this part for granted (even though, I haven't seen anything that would support this or would confirm this), I still wouldn't be okay with some kid's life getting totally fucked up, because of the groomers, because again, the harm is not comparable to a kid to kid relationship. If these relationships are standard, then again, I don't see how this would be good or beneficial for the kids, when kids can have normal relationship with each other, where the potentiality for harm is not as high. @integral Can you list your reasons how such a relationship would be generally good for a kid (if we take into account the potential harm as well)?

Question is why would we allow the worst case possible scenario, when it is not necessary. We have to judge this issue from a potential harm vs benefit issue, I don't think the potential benefits that such a relationship could bring to a child could ever outweigh the potential harm.

Its not standard. The potentiality for harm is different, because adults have an upperhand physically, financially, cognitively etc, so they can abuse their power much more easily and in a different ways, compared to a normal relationship where a kid is dating a kid. Its also an assumption, that they are not being taken advantage of. - I mean its not rare ,when adults groom children. Also, we are not necessarily talking about stupidity but more about maturity and being able to see that certain actions can lead to certain unwanted consequences. There is no one perfectly good way to measure maturity, however one thing is sure, that you need to live and experience things and learn about yourself, in order to get more mature - this is why there is age of consent.

I don't have any particular stats on this particular part, so I admit that I don't know, but even in theory I don't see how could you get around the massive power difference part. Is this an assumption, or you have some source, that can verify this?

I don't think its safe to assume, that a relationship like that is a good idea in general. There might be very few exceptions where such relationship was beneficial to the youngster, but I don't think we should use exceptions to make a rule. I think that the potential benefit vs potential harm ratio is just bad.

Do you think minors can give proper consent to adults, when there is a massive power difference?

There is a difference between being okay retrospectively with an event that happened to you vs being okay with it morally on a societal level.

Veganism to me - is about moral and environmental considerations. I think there are very strong arguments in favour of veganism.

Yeah it is, but delusional people don't think the same way about this, thats why they called delusional. Some pedos think that the child is attracted to them and it would be good to have a relationship with them, but of course, there are other pedos who know that its a problem.

It would, if you would think, that what you do is good for that person.

So in your mind its impossible to imagine or super unlikely, that someone is ready to kill or ready to commit a crime or ready to do horrible stuff out of love?

Here is a weak study on "Sexual Attraction and Falling in Love in Persons with Pedohebephilia". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32086644/

So generally, you don't think that people in a family love each other? Because again, most crimes and hurt are happening between family members.